Criminal facts have to be proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, the selection of evidence and probative value of evidence conducted on the premise of fact finding belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court.

(Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). On the grounds set out in its reasoning, the lower court acknowledged the fact that the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim, and recognized the first instance court’s judgment recognizing the Defendant’s willful negligence as to the crime of causing property damage in this case, and rejected the grounds for appeal as to the mistake of facts

The allegation in the grounds of appeal disputing the lower court’s fact-finding is merely an error of the lower court’s determination on the evidence selection and probative value, which belong to the free judgment of the lower court.

In addition, even after examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the relevant legal doctrine or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.